German OOB is more or less finished, as soon as i can force myself to stop combing through the sources for units like Wach-Btl.Siemensstadt, LW.Wach.Btl.Berlin or Versuchs-Abt. Berlin Spandau.

Yes, yes, I'm nuts,

Looking for obscure units? ..... In April of 1945, a panzerjäger-versuchs abteilung fighting was in Berlin. Its equipment consisted partially of VW Kübelwagen and Borgward IV equipped with Raketenpanzerbüchse 54/1....There is photo evidence of abandoned Borgward IV in the area held by 11. SS Freiwilligen Panzergrenadierdivision "Nordland" in central Berlin.

I read about another Panzer-versuchsabteilung which fielded a handful of surviving Pz I and II

We will see. The Russians did land on a Danish island (which i decided to leave off the map, as any sensible player would evacuate the garrison asap)in the last days of the war. Apart from that the Kriegsmarine was practically the only navy active in the Baltic, apart from a few submarines.

The current limit is 800 placenames. The new one will be 4000. That should suffice i would say.

I rather have only 100 place names *more than sufficient even for my Kiev, Kharkov & Mius series together* & 3.5 released before I turn 50... One of the reasons I am holding back on my two new scenarios *Kharkov '43 - Operation Star & Gallop is still being updated* is the simple reason that I have no clue what's going to change or being changed in 3.5. I don't envy the monster scenario creators who won't get a glimpse of 3.5 during the secrative beta testing phase :o

A good point, maybe a sticky topic with what is on the list for 3.5 would be helpful so designers can decide if the improvements make a hold in their scenario development necessary or not. No need to release it when 3.5 makes a revision necessary.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink...I don't envy the monster scenario creators who won't get a glimpse of 3.5 during the secrative beta testing phase :o

Klink, Oberst

I don't think you appreciate the weighty financial considerations and the threat of industrial espionage hanging over a product like TOAW. This has been explained before. They can't just tell the whole world what changes they are contemplating. What are you suggesting?

A good point, maybe a sticky topic with what is on the list for 3.5 would be helpful so designers can decide if the improvements make a hold in their scenario development necessary or not. No need to release it when 3.5 makes a revision necessary.

What I mean? What do you mean by "'improvements' should be in quotes" and "weighty financial considerations and the threat of industrial espionage"? If it is true what is being worked on of course these points are improvements, the other point is that I don't believe anything except an unreliable communication line between the guys(well anyone besides Ralph?) who work on it and the community leads to us standing in the dark on the state & aims of the current development.

Changes that have been made in the past were not inarguably improvements. In the pre-Matrix era, AA shot down about as many planes as it historically did -- a bit high, but not bonkers. That was briefly 'improved' (someone 'fixed the error') producing loss rates that bore no relationship to historical reality. That was admittedly eventually rectified -- but at long as we're on the subject, at the moment we have no AA at all.

Supply units were altered so that they can no longer exert a decisive effect.

Changes were made so that 'sea roads' no longer work.

Hence 'improvements.' Many changes have been made. Granted, some of these changes were inadvertent -- but inarguably, not all were improvements.

quote:

"weighty financial considerations and the threat of industrial espionage"? ...I don't believe anything except an unreliable communication line between the guys(well anyone besides Ralph?) who work on it and the community leads to us standing in the dark on the state & aims of the current development...

Au Contraire. Curtis has argued that an NDA prevents him from discussing any changes that may be contemplated. I strongly suspect that if he inquired, he would find out that no one actually objects to him discussing contemplated changes. Of course whoever owns the rights to TOAW doesn't want someone making the entire source code or whatever public knowledge. However, that's not what we're discussing here. Then too, TOAW's not exactly a hot intellectual property to begin with. That lends a definite note of absurdity to the whole 'we're bound by the NDA we signed' argument. Has Curtis asked if it would be okay to list the proposed changes?

Anyway...let's not use the forum to voice our 'displeasure' about certain information policies (or the lack off). I teamed up with polarenper via Dropbox and so far we got 2.5GB of reference material of all sorts. It would be helpful and encorage our team spirit and cohesion if others would share etc. do the same. Hopefully, with the next version release of TOAW, a few of us can present some top class scenarios for the community.

The proposed changes have been there for all to see since January. It's no big secret. Look at the wishlist. Here is a list of sections to look at. It's complete as of January 28. Not sure if anything has been changed since that date.

Changes that have been made in the past were not inarguably improvements. In the pre-Matrix era, AA shot down about as many planes as it historically did -- a bit high, but not bonkers. That was briefly 'improved' (someone 'fixed the error') producing loss rates that bore no relationship to historical reality. That was admittedly eventually rectified -- but at long as we're on the subject, at the moment we have no AA at all.

There is only one way for Ralph to produce totally bug-free code: Do nothing. If you want enhancements - and that was what the whole Matrix version was about - then bugs are part of the deal. They eventually get fixed. There is actually no evidence that I know of that even the first was intentional. For sure the second wasn't.

quote:

Supply units were altered so that they can no longer exert a decisive effect.

Sorry but a wishlist is a wishlist and as Curtis writes it is "not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein". I don't won't to know what everyone wishes, I would like to know what we can expect in the next patch.

The current limit is 800 placenames. The new one will be 4000. That should suffice i would say.

I rather have only 100 place names *more than sufficient even for my Kiev, Kharkov & Mius series together* & 3.5 released before I turn 50... One of the reasons I am holding back on my two new scenarios *Kharkov '43 - Operation Star & Gallop is still being updated* is the simple reason that I have no clue what's going to change or being changed in 3.5. I don't envy the monster scenario creators who won't get a glimpse of 3.5 during the secrative beta testing phase :o

Sorry but a wishlist is a wishlist and as Curtis writes it is "not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein". I don't won't to know what everyone wishes, I would like to know what we can expect in the next patch.

That is a very incorrect statement. Items in BLUE have been implemented. That means they have been, well, implemented.

quote:

ORIGINAL Curtis Lemay

Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months. It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere. We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable. We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised. Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial. Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer: This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2012: Version 12 posted.

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in post #1378. Just ignore them till I can get it fixed - if ever. The version in this post is the latest version.

Note that items in red are new. Items in blue have been implemented. Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

noun 1. any article used in some activity, especially an instrument, tool, or utensil: agricultural implements. 2. an article of equipment, as household furniture, clothing, ecclesiastical vestments, or the like. 3. a means; agent: human beings as an implement of divine plan. verb (used with object) 4. to fulfill; perform; carry out: Once in office, he failed to implement his campaign promises. 5. to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure. 6. to fill out or supplement. 7. to provide with implements

So, unless the items in BLUE have really not been implemented it would be safe to assume that the items in BLUE HAVE been implemented and can be considered to be in the 3.5 patch.

Since the 'Wish List' has items the have indeed been implemented then the phrase 'Wish List' is a misnomer and not entirely representative of what the list actually is. What it actually is is a compliation of things people want to see plus a compiliation of the things that people wanted to see and that have been acted upon and made part of the game. This cannot be denied since that are items in the 'Wish List' that are present in 3.4.

When the new patch came out, I discovered and pointed out that 'sea roads' no longer worked.

By that, I meant that one could no longer use modified units to 'bridge' a sea hex covering a major river hex with a blown bridge in it -- thus simulating supply to a beachhead that could only be maintained if the unit 'bridging' the hex could be protected. This has the advantage that it makes it possible to simulate which beaches are actually feasible landing sites at any given time. A landing at Anzio was a perfectly feasible undertaking for the Allies in February 1944. It would have been kinda impractical in May 1943. German air units would have been able to promptly wipe out the unit 'bridging' the sea road on the earlier date -- not so on the later date.

So at the moment I'm using 'sea roads' in this sense to govern which beaches the Germans can land on with some assurance of continued supply in 'Seelowe' and to control the amphibious potential of both sides in my Mediterranean/Middle East hypothetical. No taking Leros if Rhodes is still in enemy hands -- as the British found out in the Fall of 1943.

You acknowledged that sea roads no longer worked in this sense, defined it as a bug, and stated it would be fixed in the next patch.

Is that still the plan? Or did you misunderstand what I was discussing, or did I fail to make it clear, or whatever?

In any case, I'd like to know what your intentions are. Obviously, I need to know if the potential for 'sea roads' to work in this way is going to be restored.

Sorry but a wishlist is a wishlist and as Curtis writes it is "not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein". I don't won't to know what everyone wishes, I would like to know what we can expect in the next patch.

That is a very incorrect statement. Items in BLUE have been implemented. That means they have been, well, implemented.

quote:

ORIGINAL Curtis Lemay

Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months. It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere. We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable. We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised. Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial. Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer: This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2012: Version 12 posted.

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in post #1378. Just ignore them till I can get it fixed - if ever. The version in this post is the latest version.

Note that items in red are new. Items in blue have been implemented. Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

noun 1. any article used in some activity, especially an instrument, tool, or utensil: agricultural implements. 2. an article of equipment, as household furniture, clothing, ecclesiastical vestments, or the like. 3. a means; agent: human beings as an implement of divine plan. verb (used with object) 4. to fulfill; perform; carry out: Once in office, he failed to implement his campaign promises. 5. to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure. 6. to fill out or supplement. 7. to provide with implements

So, unless the items in BLUE have really not been implemented it would be safe to assume that the items in BLUE HAVE been implemented and can be considered to be in the 3.5 patch.

Since the 'Wish List' has items the have indeed been implemented then the phrase 'Wish List' is a misnomer and not entirely representative of what the list actually is. What it actually is is a compliation of things people want to see plus a compiliation of the things that people wanted to see and that have been acted upon and made part of the game. This cannot be denied since that are items in the 'Wish List' that are present in 3.4.

You appear to be saying that we can divine what items will be implemented by looking at the list of what is claimed to already have been implemented and listing those things that actually haven't been implemented. Actually, you say that items that have been implemented haven't been implemented but rather will be implemented (in the 3.5 patch.)

Or is it the case that everything in blue that has been implemented actually hasn't been implemented but will be implemented? This seems rather...obscure. Surely the changes intended for 3.5 could simply be listed?

Sorry but a wishlist is a wishlist and as Curtis writes it is "not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein". I don't won't to know what everyone wishes, I would like to know what we can expect in the next patch.

That is a very incorrect statement. Items in BLUE have been implemented. That means they have been, well, implemented.

quote:

ORIGINAL Curtis Lemay

Attached is a zip file containing the wishlist document that Jarek Flis and I have been developing for months. It was developed by collecting the wishes expressed here, there, and everywhere. We've tried to be comprehensive, but, in spite of the label, that is unattainable. We'll try to continue to maintain it as more issues are raised. Hopefully, this will reduce the repetitive posting of the same wishes over and over.

It's very important that everyone understand that this document is totally unofficial. Be sure to read and understand the disclaimer it contains and repeated here:

Disclaimer: This document contains only a collection of WISHES made by anyone and everyone, and is not a commitment by Matrix Games or anyone else to implement anything contained herein.

January 1, 2012: Version 12 posted.

Note: I'm not able to delete the version 10 document attached to post #1 of this thread or the version 11 document posted in post #1378. Just ignore them till I can get it fixed - if ever. The version in this post is the latest version.

Note that items in red are new. Items in blue have been implemented. Note: Those of you that don't have Word can still download a free Word viewer here:

noun 1. any article used in some activity, especially an instrument, tool, or utensil: agricultural implements. 2. an article of equipment, as household furniture, clothing, ecclesiastical vestments, or the like. 3. a means; agent: human beings as an implement of divine plan. verb (used with object) 4. to fulfill; perform; carry out: Once in office, he failed to implement his campaign promises. 5. to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure. 6. to fill out or supplement. 7. to provide with implements

So, unless the items in BLUE have really not been implemented it would be safe to assume that the items in BLUE HAVE been implemented and can be considered to be in the 3.5 patch.

Since the 'Wish List' has items the have indeed been implemented then the phrase 'Wish List' is a misnomer and not entirely representative of what the list actually is. What it actually is is a compliation of things people want to see plus a compiliation of the things that people wanted to see and that have been acted upon and made part of the game. This cannot be denied since that are items in the 'Wish List' that are present in 3.4.

You appear to be saying that we can divine what items will be implemented by looking at the list of what is claimed to already have been implemented and listing those things that actually haven't been implemented. Actually, you say that items that have been implemented haven't been implemented but rather will be implemented (in the 3.5 patch.)

Or is it the case that everything in blue that has been implemented actually hasn't been implemented but will be implemented? This seems rather...obscure. Surely the changes intended for 3.5 could simply be listed?

When the new patch came out, I discovered and pointed out that 'sea roads' no longer worked.

By that, I meant that one could no longer use modified units to 'bridge' a sea hex covering a major river hex with a blown bridge in it -- thus simulating supply to a beachhead that could only be maintained if the unit 'bridging' the hex could be protected. This has the advantage that it makes it possible to simulate which beaches are actually feasible landing sites at any given time. A landing at Anzio was a perfectly feasible undertaking for the Allies in February 1944. It would have been kinda impractical in May 1943. German air units would have been able to promptly wipe out the unit 'bridging' the sea road on the earlier date -- not so on the later date.

So at the moment I'm using 'sea roads' in this sense to govern which beaches the Germans can land on with some assurance of continued supply in 'Seelowe' and to control the amphibious potential of both sides in my Mediterranean/Middle East hypothetical. No taking Leros if Rhodes is still in enemy hands -- as the British found out in the Fall of 1943.

You acknowledged that sea roads no longer worked in this sense, defined it as a bug, and stated it would be fixed in the next patch.

Is that still the plan? Or did you misunderstand what I was discussing, or did I fail to make it clear, or whatever?

In any case, I'd like to know what your intentions are. Obviously, I need to know if the potential for 'sea roads' to work in this way is going to be restored.

Colin, sea roads, as described by you, will work with the new supply rules with 3.5. With old supply they always did, btw.

The current limit is 800 placenames. The new one will be 4000. That should suffice i would say.

I rather have only 100 place names *more than sufficient even for my Kiev, Kharkov & Mius series together* & 3.5 released before I turn 50... One of the reasons I am holding back on my two new scenarios *Kharkov '43 - Operation Star & Gallop is still being updated* is the simple reason that I have no clue what's going to change or being changed in 3.5. I don't envy the monster scenario creators who won't get a glimpse of 3.5 during the secrative beta testing phase :o

Klink, Oberst

Again.

Items in RED in the Comprehensive Wishlist document.

Dang. Sorry. Items in Blue have been implemented. Those that are not in 3.4, but are blue, are in 3.5.